National Core Indicators (NCI) Background Study Renta Tich, PhD - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
National Core Indicators (NCI) Background Study Renta Tich, PhD University of Minnesota: Institute on Community Integration In collaboration with HSRI NASDDDS Introduction The study purpose is to: Establish the reliability and
University of Minnesota: Institute on Community Integration
In collaboration with
HSRI NASDDDS
The study purpose is to:
Establish the reliability and validity of 31 background
Working with three participating states:
Evaluate the different approaches and rigor to
To establish the consistency (reliability) and
Conducting interviews with guardians (or staff
Comparing data collected from multiple
Data collection is headed by Oklahoma State
Well designed data collection protocol with reliability
Background section sources of data:
State’s Client Contact Manager (CCM) online
Individualized plan - OSU Proxy (family member/guardian, direct care staff or
Individual with a disability - UMN
Institutional Review Board (IRB) process can be
Some individuals with IDD do not understand
Some guardians and staff members do not know
Some IPs do not contain the most current or
BI-7: Does this person have a legal/court-appointed guardian?
BI-11: Is this person diagnosed with an intellectual disability (ID)?
If yes, what level of ID?
BI-12: What other conditions are noted in this person’s record?
BI-19: When was the last time this person had an eye examination/vision screening?
BI-20: When was the last time this person had a hearing test?
BI-25: If female, when was her last Pap test screening?
BI-29: Does this person currently take medications to treat mood disorders, anxiety, and/or psychotic disorders?
BI-29a: Does this person currently take medications for behavioral challenges?
BI-31: Does this person have a behavior plan?
BI-38: What amount of paid support does this person receive at home?
BI-39-43: Employment/other daily activities
Type of activity, number of hours, wages
BI-55-57: Does person need support to manage: self-injurious, disruptive behavior or behavior that is destructive/ harmful to
Questions that tended to be reliable: All others
Preliminary results indicate that of the 31 background questions examined, 17 questions tended to produce less reliable data, while 14 questions tended to be reliable (more concrete reliability estimates will be
produced with additional data collected)
As can be seen from the list, some of the discrepancies in answers may matter more than others
Discrepancies are for various reasons:
unclear wording of the question
inconsistent administration of the question
lack of knowledge of the individual
individual’s lack of ability to understand questions
IPs that have not been updated
These are only preliminary results that will be refined based on additional data!
Determine how each state/ contractor gathers data – what sources are used and how is consensus reached to establish validity for reporting?
Determine what source(s) of information is most reliable for each question
What are the factors that lead to unreliable data?
Are there questions that we cannot or do not need to ask in the background section?
If we cannot get reliable answers, we cannot have a valid data.
Data from GA and WA needs to be added to the results